>> thanks, andy. anna gillin,ga a delight. joe derosa, that's it for me. i'm greg gutfeld. i shall see you next time. >> bill: the o'reilly factor is on. tonight: >> we tried that top-down approach. it's what caused the mess in the first place. >> bill: president obama making a direct appeal to americans saying his economic vision will bring prosperity. but we have uncovered some very troubling information about the economy. a factor investigation we'll bring it to you. >> do you think that there should be a push for tighter gun laws given the horror that you have just endured and how it has impacted you personally? >> bill: the far left using the colorado massacre for political purposes. we have a follow up report on that. >> am i driving okay? i think we're parked, man. >> and another unbelievable san francisco situation. the city may ban smoking

cigarettes outside in some places. if you smoke pot you are fine. >> is that a joint, man? >> bill: caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone, the factor begins right now. >> bill: hi, i'm bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. are you weak? that is the sung of this evening's talking points memo. 50 years ago in the summer of 1962, john f. kennedy was president. the cold war was raging. americans are firmly behind jfk even after he screwed up the invasion of cuba, his approval rating was around 80%. country was united against communism and most of us shared common values, hard work, love of family, love of god. back then, just 6% of americans received welfare. most families didn't have very much but made do without taking from other people. i remember my mother and father scraping by hot dogs,

tuna, spatting, a used car, no air-conditioning, one black and white tv. one vacation week a year, a car trip to a lake in vermont. but nobody complaneld. my leavitt town, new york neighborhood was considered working class but so what? we had fun, we appreciated what we did have. a few miles away in garden city there was an amazing amount of, quote, income inequality on display. in that neighborhood folks had all the comforts. but never once did i hear my parents utter a jealous word. never once. now, 35% of american homes receive some kind of welfare. that doesn't include social security or medicare which we, the american workers, pay into. talking points is not talking about that. i'm talking about the more than 100 million americans who are currently getting taxpayer funds from other americans. because they can't or won't earn enough to support themselves. in 50 years, we have gone from

6% to 35% in this arena. how county democratic party continue to believe that's a good thing? continue to promote programs that create depen dense rather than self-reliance. competition and the desire to succeed in the marketplace have made america great. that ethic is being eroded by a culture of where's mine? president obama wants to redistribute income and impose social justice through taxing the wealthy and business concerns. that's what he wants to do. mr. obama cannot possibly believe that a giant welfare state leads to strength. it does not. it leads to weakness. few oppose safety nets for those who through no fault of their own have fallen on hard times. a humane society provides for those people, children, the elderly, the mentally and physically depleted. we are well beyond that in america. we have become a society that tolerates slackers and in some cases rewards irresponsible behavior. some far left individuals

despise the u.s.a. believing military and economic strength is a force for evil that we are an exploitative country. some americans believe president obama falls into that category. i do not. but i do believe the is creating a huge federal apparatus that is draining individual incentive and creating an underclass of americans who are not willing to compete for prosperity. that is not what america should be about. and that's the memo. top story tonight. reaction. >> barack and hard place duo monica crowley and alan colmes. what the bleep just happened. you can say that about talking points memo whats that way was that. >> that's the question most americans have been asking since the fall of 2008. your talking points memo goes further. i think you are right to talk about how this has been going on and in development for decades. i do believe the entire point of the democratic party is to create and perpetuate this long cycle of dependency and

victim hood. that's what all of these social welfare programs are about. they started out with a noble intent to help those who needed temporary handouts. what they have grown into is a way of life. the democrats perpetuate that because they need a permanent postoperativer class. because operatively that leads to democratic majority. >> mexican consulates and embassies they now promote how to get american food stamps. you are aware of that story, colmes? >> yes. >> bill: on radio and billboards you can get stood stamps here. you can get this aid here. it's like, hey, let's get on the grave train. and i'm thinking that this is weakening america. >> you are blaming democrats for this when 20 of the last 30 years republic presidents. 15 of the last 17 we had a republic house and we had a republic senate for about 10 of the last 17 years. so, when you say it's obama's apparatus. not obama's apparatus. we have had this in republic legislations and republic

senate. >> bill: there is truth to what you say. george w. bush spent like a wild man in his eight years in office and he did embrace the entitlement culture to some extent. but the whole philosophy of barack obama and the democratic party is that this is the just society going from 6% welfare to 35% in 50 years that's a good thing it's going to strengthen the country. >> i don't think anyone is saying that democrats would like to get more money into the economy. put money into people's pockets and spend the. >> bill: give it to me. >> not give it. moody's reported the economists, not a left wing publication that says for every dollar that's spent on food stamps, 1.72 comes into the economy. every dollar spent on unemployment -- 63 goes -- >> bill: i don't care about that because what the united states is doing right now to pay the food stamps and everything else is they are printing money. which, in the long run is going to erode. >> it's putting money back

into the economy. >> it's putting bogus money back into the economy. >> also you mentioned jfk. >> you just avoid add very important point. >> it's putting paper money that's becoming devalued back into the economy. >> to some extent but not totally. >> bill: let her go and then you can jump back. >> don't do it through taxpayer money and do it through the government. >> bill: giving people phony money to spend. >> subsidizing this kind of entitlement society. do you it through the private sector. alan is right to an extent enough republicans have gone through the big government and spending in the name of compassion. >> bill: they did it to buy votes. don't give me the compassion business. they did it to buy votes. >> i'm saying because the democrats have been so successful as painting you as uncompassionate if you don't do this. >> bill: we will go along and buy votes too. >> that's exactly right. i hold them to account as well. >> bill: let's get off the government thing and into -- >> what the government has done the last couple years is sleight getting to that

tipping point. 50% paying no federal income tax. >> bill: we all know -- that's what i want to get into. what about the mind set of where's mine? okay, that i'm entitled, i as an american citizen? if i can't make it on my own or i don't have a job or i don't have this or i don't have that you need to give it to me. >> 50% of the people who get food stamps are children. 8% are elderly. we care about kids. >> bill: wait a minute. what do you think little kids are going and applying for food stamps. >> families who have kids. >> bill: hold it you gave a number. >> you gave the number of people who get government largess. half of them are kids. 8% are elderly. >> bill: kids single moms churning out three are a four and they can't support themselves. >> that's a general statement. >> bill: no it's not. it's backed up by stats. it's not a broad generalization. >> all turning out three and four kids. you get $200 a month and that's going to live you high on the hog? >> bill: no, i'm not saying that. i'm saying that the collapse of basically values, we earn our own way is leading to the

2,000% rise in these entitlements. 2,000% rise. >> we have aging population. baby boomers aging. >> that's not what the recession is about. >> you say president obama wants to redistribute wealth. jfk how cited was 91% tax rate for the top. >> bill: that's bogus, nobody paid that. >> obama wants to bring it to 3%. that's nowhere near where it was. >> listen, when barack obama in 2008 talked about the fundamental transformation of the nation, don't think about what you thought he meant by that think about what he meant by it what he meant was perpetuating and growing this intittlezment class and this culture of dependency on government. >> bill: why would he do that when he knows that weakens the nation? >> this is what socialism is about. >> oh, come on. the socialist. >> excuse me, you talk about redistributing the wealth. this is what government directed redistribution is all about. about creating that permanent

pauper class. >> bill: i would love to be able to read -- >> there is ideological element to it. not just about buying votes. >> bill: it's weakens the country. >> cut taxes for 95% of working families. not acting like a socialist. >> bill: we are a weaker country now than we were 50 years ago. >> i don't know what weaker means. >> bill: i know that's why you are lost in the woods. >> that's not true and that's not an accurate representation. >> bill: we would like to you vote in our bill o'reilly.com poll. please select your choice for governor romney's running mate. there are the names. we had alan colmes on there but we took it off. so please pick just one. we will give you the results tomorrow. who do you think should run as romney's v.p. should the fbi crack down on americans who traffic in heavy weapons? later, the penn state punishment fair or unfair? coming right back.

>> bill: impact segment tonight, was we reported last night the far left is trying to use the colorado movie massacre to promote gun control. the brother of a young woman murdered by james holmes was confronted by that last night. >> do you feel compelled to push for tighter gun laws? >> here's the thing. we can try to politicize this and make some kind of polarizing debate and some pennant of the election that's not what we are here to do we are here to celebrity the lives of the victims who lost. if somebody's to do harm to somebody they are going to do it. >> bill: that makes true. also makes sense for congress to pass a new law that requires the sale of all heavy weapons to be reported to the fbi. in this age of terrorism, that law is badly needed. joining us now from washington, congressman jason chvitz disagrees. where am i going wrong here, congressman. >> bill, giving the fbi a master his of everybody who owns weapons in this country is not the right direction. >> bill: did you think you cattle gore rise what i said

accurately everybody who owns weapons. that's not what i said and you know it? >> heavy weapons. mortars, machine guns. in this age of terrorism, if you do a flight school, the fbi is alerted. but you can buy a machine gun and the fbi doesn't know. and you think that's responsible? >> well, first of all, i don't think that's absolutely not true. if you buy a fully automatic weapon, you have to go get a tax certificate from the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms in order to do that you have to pass a fingerprint background check. >> bill: have you ever been to a gun show, congressman. >> yes, i have. >> bill: you can buy any weapon you want there and no reporting anyway. >> no. you can't go out and just go and buy a bazooka as you suggest or a fully automatic machine gun. there are laws on the books. >> bill: you can buy an a.k. 47 in this country and no federal agency will know you by it. and as the guy in colorado proved, can you buy a mass amount of ammunition on the

net and nobody is reported. look, here is my deal and you tell me where i am wrong. if you sell heavy weaponry. all right? semiautomatics, ammunition, all you do is you file with the fbi. and that way the fbi can cross-reference, all right, say the fbi has you on a terror watch list. and then it comes in that you are buying an ak. well, the fbi is going to put you under surveillance. say this guy was bought 60,000 rounds in colorado, which he did, and the fbi in denver got wind of that, they would have been watching him. all right? this just makes common sense. it's not intrusion on gun rights. >> you are not going to sign an fbi agent to follow each and every law. >> bill: did you get 60,000 rounds? he certainly will. >> you cannot -- you cannot say that the laws on the books are not tough and stringent. >> bill: sure i can the kid bought 60,000 rounds and no federal agency knew about it. >> you are not going to have an fbi agent who is suddenly

trailing everybody in this country who buys whatever it your definition is a large number of pieces of ammunition. >> bill: congressman, let me break this to you, if the fbi is alerted that somebody is buying 60,000 heavy duty rounds, they are going to check it out. because that's what antiterrorism is. that's what they do.>> bill, the the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. we have a specially designated law enforcement officer -- >> bill: that purchase on the internet wasn't reported to any federal agency. that's why he was able to assemble that armor that he had. and you are telling me you object to this? this doesn't intrude on any hunter, anybody with a handgun to protect themselves. >> sure it does. >> bill: this is an a.k., come on. >> this the is second amendment. you have a lawful and reasonable right to be able to go out and purchase weapons. >> bill: the key is reasonable. i'm not saying you can't purchase. report the purchase. >> bill, you are ignoring the current law on the books. you are coming up with this

wild definition of what is so-called heavy armor men. >> bill: wild definition? a.k. 47 is not heavy armor? a.k.? >> there are laws on the books. you act as if. >> bill: there are no federal laws to report that. >> you are misinformed. >> bill: no, you are wrong. seven states that require if you buy an a.k. and 43 that don't. come on! >> no. bill, you are totally misinformed. you go to an ffl. go to a federally firearms licensee and you want to purchase, you have to go through a background check. if you want to purchase fully automatic -- >> bill: there are more loopholes in the gun purchasing laws in this country. all you have to do and you define it, not me. you define it you are an honest man. >> it does define it. >> bill: no it doesn't. >> yes, it does. >> bill: the guy in colorado got all this stuff and nobody knew about it come on. >> everybody wishes that we could wave our magic wand and this never happened. i remember when gabriel

giffords happened. i wish that never ever happened. the point was made by this guy's brother and others we are not trying to politicize it. the laws are on the book. >> bill: i'm not trying to politicize it i wouldn't even ban a.k.'s. i wouldn't even go back to the it bread law that they had. but i would report. there is nothing wrong with that. >> the reporting is already there, bill. you are misinformed. >> bill: all right, if the reporting were there the fbi would have known about this guy in denver. >> and it wouldn't have solved this problem in this instance. >> bill: making two parallel arguments there. lively debate and we appreciate you coming on. penn state punishment, is it fair? more craziness in san francisco, they don't want you to smoke cigarettes but pot, hey, that's another matter. stossel with details in just a few moments.

[laughing] [tires screeching]

>> bill: factor follow up segment tonight. protecting the kids from sexual predators. obviously penn state did not do that and suffering consequences as you know. the football program gutted by the ncaa. some feel that's unfair. >> you cannot deny that there had to be a punishment. >> i just -- i didn't think it would be in this much. >> the sanctions that they're putting on the penn state university are just completely pretentious and over the top. >> there has been no legal precedence that i can see that they could do this to all the students that had attended penn state, played their heart out on a saturday for a season after season, who had nothing to do with the despicable act. >> bill: with us now to react psychiatrist dr. keith a ablow. you are punishing the team. spectators who like the game. good people taking $60 million out of their operation. they had nothing to do with this pedophilia or the

cover-up of it so the punishment is unjust. you say? >> i say it's perfectly just. listen, sportsmanship and character are part of the game. and if you are at a place that has shown none of that by virtue ofics posing children to rape, well then, yeah. you know what? there is some scatter effect. too bad you are not able to participate in the game the way that you could have before. you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. >> bill: undeniable -- students and players didn't have anything to do with it. they go another option with the university. >> absolutely. >> bill: the university says they can transfer to any school they want. i agree with you there has to be a punishment at this level to discourage anybody else from ever doing this again and that's why the punishment is necessary. but you can't deny that innocent people are getting hurt in the process. >> any time you enforce any law innocent people are hurt in the process. you think when you sanction a business because there is fraud going on that there aren't entry level employees

who are hurt and stack holders you put a man in jail for a crime his family is hurt. >> bill: so people need to understand that there has to be a sanction for bad behavior and if you are caught up in it, it's not a perfect world. >> these people can't be entrusted with using dollars and scholarships and the rest to run an upright, upstanding operation. they became dark. >> bill: they are all gone. >> and allowed child rapist. >> three are going to be put in prison. sandusky he is gone. and the university has to move forward. but it has to be punished as a deterrent. >> agreed. >> bill: jessica's law, big debate. there was a terrible guy here raped two boys for a number of years. he gets two years by this crazy judge murphy, all right? and i, as you know, has been on this campaign for jessica's law for years. and more than 40 states have it new york and new jersey do not have it. all right? and we now are going on a campaign. but you don't believe in jessica's law. >> i was going to say good for new york and new jersey. because you want -- i'm here

to help. you and -- >> bill: not helping the kids though by imposing jessica's law. >> i am. it's still important to grow up in a land of freedom where judges have discretion. i gave expert testimony in lots of cases in which drug charges were involved. in which the judge had no discretion to be human, to factor in other -- >> bill: 15, 20 years they gave it away like candy, why? because a judge couldn't be a judge. it was a recipe book. >> bill: so crimes so heinous they could not be left to the discretion of a guy like this judge murphy. this all happened because a guy named john couey in florida was not incarcerated time after time after time and he raped and killed jessica lunsford. let's remember why this happened. the system in florida. >> that's terrible. >> bill: could not, could not control child predators. once they passed jessica's law. that stopped. and it stopped in texas and 40 other states. but you still have faith or

trust in a system. >> i have to. >> bill: no, you don't. >> i have to because every control -- every freedom has some toll associated with it it's like this discussion with the movie slaughter. gun rights don't have to do with this. we accept that freedoms involve peril. similarly to give a judge discretion is a wonderful thing. >> bill: it's not a wonderful thing in some areas. >> christian roots that we forget king solomon? >> bill: i'm sorry. >> take that away from judges. >> bill: some crimes are so heinous that they have to be punished at a level that's consistent across the board. that's jessica's law. you punish at a level consistent. >> it won't be consistent because the crimes aren't consistent. >> bill: child rape is child rape. >> no it isn't. >> child rape by someone who was raped him or herself and horribly traumatized. >> bill: does that the give you license to do it to someone else. >> did it to one child and not 10 children. all different elements of

these calculuses. >> bill: are you kidding me. >> lifetime of probation. >> bill: i can't believe what you are saying. >> you can take a medicine to essentially castrate the male. >> bill: i don't care about that. >> why wouldn't you then show mercy? >> bill: i'm not. you have destroyed a child. you deserve no mercy. you get the 20 -- >> -- i want to protect the judiciary. you want to run it i'm not comfortable with you running it. >> bill: here is what i want, justice. >> i would be king. be careful when a man would be king. >> bill: dr. ablow, everybody, good debate. we need your help to protect the kids. because of governors of new jersey and new york governor cuomo and chris christie will not get behind's jessica's law. we have created a petition we are going to give them. here is the petition, we the undersigned governor chris cities i have to support and pass jessica's law in their respective states. go to bill o'reilly.com. sign a petition. hand deliver it to the governors. shame we have to do this but there is no other way. we hope you will take the time

to signed petition. we hope dr. a below will sign it. >> no i'm not signing it. >> bill: more mad ms. in san francisco. cigarettes no, pot? yes? we will details. rape of a teenage girl where the victim is now in trouble. we hope you stay tuned to those reports.

>> bill: san francisco, the secular city on the hill. if you want to know what the committed left is trying to do

that's the place to look. two recent controversies, cigarettes no, pot okay. second proposal to tax drivers on how many miles they travel by installing a mandatory g.p.s. in all san francisco cars. >> do you really need to do g.p.s.? >> well, you know, the g.p.s. thing i think is made up to give people a sense. if you want people to pay a tax on it, it has to be completely understandingable, it has to be accurate so people think it's fair. one way to do that which we know works, people jog with g.p.s. watches. clearly you could do it that way. >> bill: here now the author of the big new book "no they can't," fox business anchor john stossel. so everybody is clear, this is serious. if you have a car and in the city of san francisco, they want to tax you on how many miles you drive. you go over a certain limit, you have to pay a tax to the city and they are going to monitor this by g.p.s. talk about big brother, my god.

>> amidst all their stupid ideas. >> bill: yeah. >> this is just planning, this is not a terrible one. because somebody has got to pay for the roads. it's better to have the users pay. and if the more you drive the heavier your car the more damage you do this way you can have congestion prices. >> bill: you pay tolls and regulation fees. >> drive more drive at rush hour on crowded roads. if they do that -- >> bill: you want big brother to put a g.p.s. in your car so the san francisco people can track how much you drive? this is what you, the libertarian, wants? >> libertarians are creeped out by that. they can already spy on us with our cell phones. >> bill: you are rationalizing. this we have got to pay for the roads. this is not the worst idea. >> bill: i think you are smoking pot and that leads meed to the segway. in san francisco they want to ban cigarette smoking in public places but if you are smoking pot, medical marijuana the biggest ruse in the world, they are okay with it and you

say? >> they should both be legal free people should get to do what they want to do. >> want to ban smoking in public places but you can puff on a marijuana cigarette all day long if you have your ear hurts. see, right here. that's all i have got to do is walk in and say my ear hurts. pay 250 to the doctor. doctor writes you a script and you get a thousand pounds of marijuana because your ear hurts. >> lots of importantly if it's not prohibit the use of medical. >> bill: of course. it's such a joke. >> we don't want to talk anymore about this. >> bill: it's such a joke, isn't the whole thing ridiculous. >> biggest horrible joke even the cigarette smoking bans outdoors. based on this fallacy that it's a health risk. second hand smoke is not a health risk. all these studies that the government has looked at. world health organization. they found a tiny effect sometimes.

some found no effect. >> bill: you don't want to be in a restaurant to have cigar smoke. >> i wouldn't go to that restaurant. smokers should have a right to do that studied people with cigarette smoke in homes and cars for years? >> bill: smoke everywhere? >> some places a public square where it's banned. keep getting bigger and outdoors. >> bill: smoke pot all day long. >> less of intrusion. cigarette smokers do a whole pack. pot jokers maybe one joint maybe. it's less. >> bill: you should move to san francisco. they would love you there. >> no they don't. >> bill: let's take up a collection and get him out there. when we come right back, is it legal on a young rape victim being happen hammered by the stay of kentucky in a nasty courtroom brawl in florida. legal is next.

>> thanks for staying with us, i'm bill o'reilly. in the is it legal segment. three hot topics starting with the situation in kentucky. assaulted by two 17-year-old boys who were convicted but not sentenced until next month. under kentucky guidelines the boys could get one to five years in prison even less, up to the judge as we were talking about. but savanna, very angry about the situation. believing the punishment is far too light. so she took action that got her trouble. here now attorneys and fox news analyst kimberly guilfoyle and lis wiehl.

what did she do. >> she named her attackers on twitter. the judge says look you can't talk about anything that's happened in this courtroom. she got so upset about the plea deal that was happening in front of her that she put their name out on twitter and for that, the attackers now pled guilty to these felonies the attacker's aattorney said she is guilty of contempt and looking at 180 days sheriff's department dropped that yesterday so she is not looking at that. >> the assailant's lawyer went her because she was angry and put their names out. >> yes. >> for a plea deal to be executed, doesn't the victim have to go along with it? >> in any prosecutor's office, that is the general guideline and practice that should be adhered to. it seems as in this case it was not. that's one of the things she was very upset about. >> bill: in this case it's terrible because not only does she say she was raped. but they took pictures of her unconscious. they put the pictures out on the internet. >> right. >> bill: all of this stuff. as we were talking with dr. a

blow, the judge could give these guys one year or even less. she is so appalled that she wanted the court of public opinion to know who they are. >> right. because everyone knows who she is because they stripped her of her privacy and her dignity by committing these crimes against her. >> bill: yeah by putting it out on the internet. >> pled to something far less bill billion looks like a totally out of control situation involving a teenage girl who was sexually abused. am i right. >> you are right. let me give you the other side for just a minute here. the prosecutors always consult or should consult with the victims in the case. but they don't have to go along with what the victim wants. they have to do what they can prove. maybe for some reason they didn't think they could prove this charge. i didn't know that that happened. but they don't have to. >> she is a minor, bill. there is no excuse. they didn't consult with her or her parents. >> bill: this is why we need jessica's law which wouldn't apply in this case because the children are usually 14 and under. >> usually cooperative and they pled it out.

>> bill: she is not going to get in trouble for doing it. >> no. >> now in florida, there is another stand your ground case. and that devolved into a brawl in the courtroom. roll the tape. [shouting] puts your hands against will wall. >> why did the guy throwing punches go wild? >> this is a very sad case. as you stated it's based on the stand your ground law allegedly. although i do not think based on the facts of this case it's applicable. two brothers were gunned down. the facts of the case are mr. clare, the defendant, came back to the bar where these boys were. they had all gone to a local high school telling, shot both the brothers. the facts are that he allegedly then went back and said he was going to shoot the mother of the boys.

what you saw in the brawl was. >> bill: he looked in bad shape there was he beat up? why did he shoot the boys. >> there was an altercation in the bar. >> bill: he went out and came back and killed them. >> left and came back with the gun. that's not stand your ground. >> bill: who attacked who? >> the stepfather of the defendant, mr. clare. you have the father and the pictures are right here of the two boys. and you have a friend, a family friend, an associate like a guy that was friends with the two brothers that were killed. that's what happened with the brawl, words were exchanged. >> pretty much the friend of the father of the dead children of the dead boys who started it that's at least what the reports are. that he said, you know, come after me. here is what the court did. inexcusable to he me. the court put all of these people, the stepfather, the father, the friend, all of them in the same room in a small little place awaiting a hearing for the killer of their children. >> and let them leave together. usually what you do is wait until one group leaves.

>> bill: i got it in portland, oregon, there was a guy who went through airport security he got mad so he he stripped. there he is. he was arrested and he beat the rap, wiehl, how did he do that? >> i love your simplicity. >> he took off the wrap. >> he gos in and says look, you have seen nitrate on my gloves. he gets so mad he strips down. have to put crates all around him. >> how did he beat the rap. >> under oregon law it's not indecember sent exposure unless you are exposing yourself for sexual purposes ie you are having sex with somebody or. >> bill: everybody in the oregon airport, anybody airport, medford, portland, eugene, you can go naked, you could go naked. >> not going to try to have sex or elicit arousal desires. >> all you have to do is say i'm expressing myself. >> first amendment.

>> bill: makes it easier to go through airport security. they don't have to pat you down here i am. here is my shirt and he t is. >> let's not encourage people to do that. >> bill: i'm not encouraging anyone. i'm stating the facts. in oregon, if you want to be naked in the terminal or anywhere else. >> you will go through quicker, it's a fact. >> not true in pennsylvania. >> research. >> >> bill: charles krauthammer up next. some were mad that he predicted president obama would win the election if the collection were today. the doctor with thoughts on colorado next.

>> bill: back of the book segment tonight, when we last left charles krauthammer there was this.

>> bill: if the election were held tomorrow, who would win? >> obama. because if you look at all the polls, he averages 2 point edge in the popular vote. it's almost inconceivable that you would have that strong an excess in the overall vote and lose in the electriccable college. >> bill: charles joins us now from washington. i bet you got a lot of reaction to that. >> i did. but i feel like a presidential candidate. you quoted me out of context. i then continued to say the election is not being held tomorrow and it's going to be held in november and then romney was going to win and i gave the reasons why that's true. i have seen all over the internet people saying i predicted obama is going to win. >> bill: no, no, no. today, we didn't do that. the internet -- >> -- the internet did that. >> bill: they did. but instructive because the reason i asked the question is because we're at a place now where i feel it's almost inexplicable that the president is running so strong

with the state of the economy and everything else. that's why i asked the question. >> well, i agree with you. you would expect the president in this terrible economy would be way behind and he is not. you take average the polls. higher enumerator and higher denominator and if you are up by 2% you are going to win. that's not analysis. >> bill: disagree with you and so do i and those are two brilliant people that disagree with you. were people mad at you when you said that? did you get angry mail? >> no, i don't get angry email. there was no anthrax in my email. [ laughter ] look, it was people saying they were disappointed in me. or, some were energized. we can't let this happen. can't let conservatives stay home. got to get out there and vote. the fact is i think romney does win in november.

and the reason is, it's a pretty static race now. but it's not going to be static forever. and the dynamic is, that the economy is weakening. you hear that from the chairman of the fed on down. everybody says it's it weakening. the recovery never happened. people are highly disappointed. nothing is going to happen economically between now and election day that's going to make any material difference. and, obama nothing to run on. >> bill: i know. it's a bad economy and that's it. so, either vote for him on more hope but that's all. now, charles is a psychiatrist. most of you know that. and he listened to my debate with mr. keith a below when this story broke. i said it's impossible to get nuts offer the street if they show violent tendencies. you agree with me on this, charles? correct? >> once again have you

stumbled on to truth i think you are absolutely right. every time you get one of these terrible incidents. the first thing is gun control. what people never talk about is the idea of getting people who are that dangerous off the street. now, it's not easy. you can't always predict. and this is the case here in aurora is a difficult one. i give you the example of the tucson shooter. within a day or two we knew the guy was clearly a psychotic. you heard from his teachers. you heard from a student. in one of his classes said she dropped out because the guy was so scary. so you have got everybody around him that he is a threat. he could go off. scaring people and he doesn't end up in custody, meaning mental health custody. until he commits a crime. >> right. >> when i was young, when you were young, when i was practicing psychiatry at the

mass general hospital and i was running the psychiatric emergency room, i could commit people who i thought were dangerous to themselves and to others with very little restriction. today the restrictions are much higher, the barriers are much more difficult to overcome. and the lawyers are out there just waiting. >> bill: just waiting. >> to sue you and the hospital. >> you can thank the aclu for that by the way. they were in the forefront of dismantling the authority that you had decades ago. charles, as always, we appreciate it thanks very much. factor tip of the day about food. don't miss this one. 60 seconds away.

tip testify day in a moment. it's about food and your health. but a week from tonight, the first presidential town hall meeting for premium members. if you sign up or renew, you get a free copy of "killing lincoln"

or "killing kennedy." check it out. the town hall will be interactive. you can ask me stuff. i thinkul like it. now the mail... >> same ones that classify bank robbing and kidnapping as federal crime, tom. >> i don't care what moyers thinks about the nra, doctor. my beef with him is that he knows gun control laws don't keep guns from criminals. yet he implies the epir -- the opposite.

>> my mandate -- protect the kids, janet. sometimes tough analysis is necessary. this is one of those times.